# Conde v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2003 · 827 A.2d 418

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959772

## Case

- **Full name:** Keith CONDE v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 827 A.2d 418
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Nigro
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959772

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2003, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. The Commonwealth Court correctly dismissed Appellant’s procedural due process claims on mootness grounds. *419 Appellant’s additional claim of entitlement to release upon completion of service of his backtime, which was not rendered moot, states no basis for mandamus relief, since the determination at issue was within discretion of the Board. Coady v. Vaughn, 564 Pa. 604 , 770 A.2d 287 (2001) (mandamus will not he where substance of Board’s discretionary action is subject of challenge); Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285 , 724 A.2d 319 (1999) (denial of parole is generally discretionary matter not subject to review).
Justice NIGRO dissents.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959772. Public record. Not legal advice.